Well....it's an interesting question. When you mention using the "Jason slasher" to represent a man, then I see what you're saying: If you want to say a person is acting like a crazy person, you would choose someone of the same gender as a representation of a crazy person (most of the time--unless a person of the opposite gender made a perfect match: someone compiling an "enemies list" would be a "Nixon," even if the person were a female) . A female mad killer would be another Lizzy Borden; a man another Ted Bundy (or whatever). Yeah, I see what you mean.

I supose I link it to sexism because it does seem a LITTLE OVERBOARD to compare her to a deranged killer! Perhaps I've been trained to label as "sexist" anything that's purposely DEROGATORY and that is linked to representation by gender--even though, perhaps, sexist is the wrong word. I don't know WHAT the correct word would be, either (it wouldn't be misogynistic).

It's an unduly exaggerated (and needlessly uncomplimentary) association, that also links those being compared through their gender. I suppose it's true that the gender part is really unimportant--it's more important to ask why a rather nastier than necessary comparison was made in the first place. There is in fact a common bias against Hillary Clinton, as a PERSON, and a candidate. I think perhaps some journalists let their bias show--which most certainly is NOT the same thing as saying they're either sexist or misogynist.